Jamie, good points. Talk to me about the "right way". I think what i'm positing is that in SM (odd objects) there are a bunch of right ways to explode inot a triple extension...how you do it and how I do it are different almost by neccesity, the things we are moving in this case are (hopefully) bigger than we are...but, this explosion leads you to the same place.

in Oly, i seems there are fewer "right ways" and much attention must be paid to doing it properly if you're going to add load and this I think this is where we part ways, I think Load is king, usefulness of the DE method aside, wherein it is instructive to note how many people (Wendler included) have replaced it with RE work. I do not because I need to learn to move faster, I need to learn the movements period.

But this question of the "ideal" sequence is interesting, for instance, what about the rebending of the knees is ideal? in a lot of ways it seems like a convention forced by the transition of getting a barbell into a jumping position.

Good discussion, and just a few quick thoughts as I'm running out the door.

The oly lifts are pretty technical. However, we can conclude a couple different things based on the observation of the shitty technique of most athletes: First, that the lifts are too complex to teach well in the limited amount of time most athletes have to learn them; or two, those instructing them are not doing a good job.

I think it's a combination of both. No football player is ever going to be as good at weightlifting as a weightlifter - duh. But I do think it's entirely possible to teach non-lifters sound enough technique in little enough time to reap some benefits that are not available through other means. However, I also will be the first to admit that you have to evaluate the circumstances and make smart choices - if it's clear this basic level of proficiency cannot be achieved for whatever reason, trying is not a good investment of time and energy.

Do the lifts mimic the movements in football? Not really. But neither does flipping a tire or throwing a keg. One could argue that flipping a tire is a lot more similar than a clean to a lineman's duties, and I would agree.

But the point is, "functional" or "productive" doesn't mean mimicry - it means developing physical qualities that improve the athlete's ability to play.

Yes, you can lift stuff quickly - whether a bar in a deadlift or a sandbag or, god-forbid, a kettlebell. But I would argue that no "speed lift" can match the top-end knee/hip extension speed of a snatch or clean. This is just a result of circumstance - you have an implement that can be kept in immediate proximity to the body and there is zero need to slow the implement down at the end of the movement (like a DL - you have to stop). That hip/leg power can then be used to improve upon movements like sandbag lifts, etc, and maybe even sprinting, cutting, pushing another gigantor dude around.

Having said all that, the o-lifts are only one small part of all the goodness to be used to prep footballers for the game, and teaching/learning them can't be allowed to unnecessarily limit the time put into actual training. I do think SM implements/exercises have a great deal of value for these folks (and most others). I just think the idea of using them, or anything else, as actual substitutes for oly lifts isn't legit.

Well I guess 'the right way' is that which accomplishes your aim as efficiently as possible with a minimum risk of injury. There will always be more in common than different in the ways people lift anything. Also, I think strongman lifts have accepted techniques just like the olympic lifts. Take the stones: there is pretty much a consensus on how the lift should be performed. Try and do something wildly different and you'll probably fail.

These things which all the movements have in common is the most important factor. Take for example keeping a straight back and bracing your spine. This is pretty fundamental to any lift you like. This can be learnt in various ways; however, the end result is the same. I learnt it doing heavy deadlifts. Now I know what to do when I'm asked to snatch or load a heavy sandbag. The basics stay the same regardless of the object being lifted. I would argue that this understanding, this proprioceptive knowledge and body coordination, is just as important as sheer loading.

Getting into the specifics of the knee rebend, well this couldn't be more natural in my opinion. Take anyone untrained or trained and get them to pick something heavy up to the shoulder. Alternatively, get them to lean forward at the waist, then tell them to jump as high as possible. I really didn't understand the idea of the rebend till I started olympic lifting, but if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Let me throw one back at you: look at stone lifting. You have a first pull to get it past the knees. Then the knees rebend, albeit to a much greater extent than in an olympic 2nd pull, and the stone is rolled onto the thighs and lapped. From them comes explosive hip AND knee extension to load the stone. To my eyes, this is pretty similar to an olympic lift. The differences are semantics when you get down to it.

We want a lift that teaches us to perform this movement in as biomechanically sound a way as possible. Thus when the body is asked to do something similar on the sports field, it will get pretty close to the ideal. This, for me, is strength. Strength, after all, is no more than another skill. You get better at it by practising it. It involves learning greater recruitment of muscle fibres. This is just like learning the piano, just gross motor rather than fine. Moving better makes you stronger, therefore.

I think strongman lifts have accepted techniques just like the olympic lifts. Take the stones: there is pretty much a consensus on how the lift should be performed. Try and do something wildly different and you'll probably fail.

not really. there is pretty huge spread

Quote:

Take for example keeping a straight back and bracing your spine. This is pretty fundamental to any lift you like. This can be learnt in various ways; however, the end result is the same.

Again. No. In a lot of really powerful explosive SM movements you move from round back to arched back ..or not... The key is bracing in any f'ed up position you find yourself. Perfect form will screw you very very quickly in the bright light of day.

Quote:

Getting into the specifics of the knee rebend, well this couldn't be more natural in my opinion. Take anyone untrained or trained and get them to pick something heavy up to the shoulder. Alternatively, get them to lean forward at the waist, then tell them to jump as high as possible. I really didn't understand the idea of the rebend till I started olympic lifting, but if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Let me throw one back at you: look at stone lifting. You have a first pull to get it past the knees. Then the knees rebend, albeit to a much greater extent than in an olympic 2nd pull, and the stone is rolled onto the thighs and lapped. From them comes explosive hip AND knee extension to load the stone. To my eyes, this is pretty similar to an olympic lift. The differences are semantics when you get down to it.

This makes some sense to me. The knee rebend might be a key component where Oly lifts are specfically transferable. I can see that.

Quote:

We want a lift that teaches us to perform this movement in as biomechanically sound a way as possible. Thus when the body is asked to do something similar on the sports field, it will get pretty close to the ideal. This, for me, is strength. Strength, after all, is no more than another skill. You get better at it by practising it. It involves learning greater recruitment of muscle fibres. This is just like learning the piano, just gross motor rather than fine. Moving better makes you stronger, therefore.

We are in total agreement. I guess I've seen how far people get thinking about Mozart when they're not ready for chopsticks. My experience leads me to believe that I can learn to explode under a heavy object like a tire more easily than I can can master an implement like a barbell and what's more, once I've learned how to do that with a tire, I can learn to do it with a sandbag, a body two bodys, etc....

Someone who really knows how to train the Oly lifts to football Coaches probably can ell this but I would bet one of the reasons Oly lifts and more specifically the power variants work in sports is the lack of an eccentric, until you're quite advanced, you can do it very often...more often may be more better..

Other than that, I'm not convinced that there's some intangible quality that you can't replicate elsewhere. That said, I think Greg's explanation adds something along the lines of the eccentrics being out of the picture and the not having to slow the BB thing is BIG.

Just one more thing to add to this discussion. Dave, close your eyes for a bit, because this is going to involve neuromuscular efficiency.

This discussion isn't about how to build strength -- the answer to that is squats, dls, press, bp, chins, etc. It's about rate of force development: the ability to apply that strength quickly, explosively and well coordinated.

It seems to me (and I'll admit that I'm speaking from the position of a person who is a beginner at Olympic lifting, has only played around with sandbag training, and has no experience in football), that it is harder to train RFD with an awkward load than with a well balanced barbell placed in the position of maximal biomechanical efficiency. Kegs, sandbags, logs, etc., may well have a part in training how to apply that RFD to hard to control objects in a coordinated way, but few things are going to beat the olympic lifts in training the body how to explode quickly.

That being said, if power cleans and snatches from the hang are all that can be effectively learned, that would probably suffice for RFD.

Just one more thing to add to this discussion. Dave, close your eyes for a bit, because this is going to involve neuromuscular efficiency.

This discussion isn't about how to build strength -- the answer to that is squats, dls, press, bp, chins, etc. It's about rate of force development: the ability to apply that strength quickly, explosively and well coordinated.

It seems to me (and I'll admit that I'm speaking from the position of a person who is a beginner at Olympic lifting, has only played around with sandbag training, and has no experience in football), that it is harder to train RFD with an awkward load than with a well balanced barbell placed in the position of maximal biomechanical efficiency. Kegs, sandbags, logs, etc., may well have a part in training how to apply that RFD to hard to control objects in a coordinated way, but few things are going to beat the olympic lifts in training the body how to explode quickly.

That being said, if power cleans and snatches from the hang are all that can be effectively learned, that would probably suffice for RFD.